Was this collision 'my fault'?

asbokid

mattymoo wrote: »

As for the dog, there is nothing whatsoever to stop you making a claim and involving the police. Whether or not it will be successful depends entirely on the dogs previous history and whether or not it has a propensity to bite or other aggresive tendancies that the owner would have been aware of. Exception to this is dangerous dogs as defined by the act of parliament.

This link explains it - http://www.1stclass.tv/dog_bite_claims.html

Therefore if the dog was previously a docile creature and the attack was out of the blue, a claim would not succeed.

Some years ago, we homed a stray Alsatian from the Dogs Trust. We still get the charity's quarterly magazine, Woof!

In a recent issue, there was a warning from the charity never to display a "BEWARE OF THE DOG!" sign in your window nor on your garden gate.

The courts have apparently take those signs as proof that an owner knows his dog is dangerous, and can hold him negligent if the animal attacks a caller.

Another piece of useless trivia!


.

asbokid

mattymoo wrote: »

Third party claims and the tort of negligence are permanently intertwined. To claim against someone elses policy you have to prove negligence on their part.

Have a look at this case - http://www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2008/CACiv/jul2.8.htm
Harris v Perry v another.

Defendent hired a bouncy castle in her garden for a party. 3 children playing on it - one of them was very seriously injured. Judge in the lower court ruled that supervision of the bouncy castle was inadequate and this led to the accident.

Court of appeal ruled that it was a play activity with associated risks. The accident was a freak and tragic event but the standard of supervision had not been negligent.

Has everything you need really - appeal court ruled no negligence, decision made by a judge.

Just because you are injured does not automatically mean somebody else is responsible and you are able to claim. You HAVE to prove they were negligent.

Any views on the Oundle School story that is in the press at the moment?

A 16 year old girl at the £22k-a-year public school attends a Valentine's Day party organised by the school. She drinks heavily for several hours. She becomes offensive and is told by school staff to return to her room to cool off. Heavily intoxicated, she leans out of her bedroom window and falls out. She hits the ground 15 feet below and is left partially paraplegic.

She has recovered enough to read classics at Cambridge, and has also managed to squeeze in a £330k claim against her old school, alleging negligence..

Her arguments are that (a) the school, acting in loco parentis, should have kept her under supervision given the level of her intoxication and (b) the window of her room opened beyond the 100mm limit prescribed in Building Regulations (which I always thought were only relevant to new building work).

mattymoo

Just read this - http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6483114.ece

Some of the comments are interesting. One suggests the housemistress had turned her back for 3 minutes to discuss the case with the matron. The girl fell out the window during that time period.

The legal duties imposed on schools are extremely high and my bosses (as well as those of most insurers) do not like to touch the education sector because of this.

Whatever the outcome I suspect there will be a very high degree of contrib negligence argued. I've seen cases where drunk persons have allowed themselves to be transported in a car driven by someone they know to be drunk as well. There damages have been substantially reduced because of the risk they took.

Sooler

abbas5001 wrote: »

the acicdent wouldn't have happened if i hadn't stopped, just trying to subtly put forward that i do have a signifcant degree of blame.

Well that's a load of BS, might as well blame the car manufacturers - wouldn't of happened if they didn't make cars :rotfl:

for all you know if you hadn't stopped you could now be in hospital with broken legs or worse.

asbokid

Sooler wrote: »

Well that's a load of BS, might as well blame the car manufacturers - wouldn't of happened if they didn't make cars :rotfl:

for all you know if you hadn't stopped you could now be in hospital with broken legs or worse.

The OP reminds me of the English gentleman in the Chevy Chase movie, National Lampoon's European Vacation...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsM0CwqGrBs&feature=related

Snuggles

Happychappy wrote: »

I fail to see how you cannot accept part of the blame ? you are travelling along a road with no reason whatsoever to stop or alter course or speed, and suddenly and without warning you hit your brakes ? yes all the highway code stuff about being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear etc,etc, but the other drivers should/would have also been looking at the road ahead and seeing absolutely no obstruction or reason for you to brake other than your poor observation and plannig skills.

I have great sympathy with the other drivers but accept you will get away with it to cause yet another accident by your poor driving, live and learn, and possibly do something about it by having some extra driving lessons or advice from te IAM etc, at least noone injured.

Sorry but this is nonsense. If anything, the driver behind who CAUSED the accident by not leaving a safe stopping distance/and or not paying enough attention to what the traffic in front was doing, is the one who should be having extra lessons to improve his poor driving.

The argument that if there had been a genuine obstruction ahead, the following drivers would have seen it, is also nonsense. What if the OP braked suddenly because he was having a heart attack at the wheel?

I can't help wondering if the people who are saying the OP is to blame are the sort of people I encounter every day on my commute who think it's perfectly acceptable to drive right up my a** :rolleyes:

Davesnave

67 answers on this? Ye gods.

Admit liability for nothing.
State the facts, as you have done here.
Leave it to the insurers & get on with your life.
Worse things happen!

Oh, shoot, that's 68!

photome

Happychappy wrote: »

I fail to see how you cannot accept part of the blame ? you are travelling along a road with no reason whatsoever to stop or alter course or speed, and suddenly and without warning you hit your brakes ? yes all the highway code stuff about being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear etc,etc, but the other drivers should/would have also been looking at the road ahead and seeing absolutely no obstruction or reason for you to brake other than your poor observation and plannig skills.

I have great sympathy with the other drivers but accept you will get away with it to cause yet another accident by your poor driving, live and learn, and possibly do something about it by having some extra driving lessons or advice from te IAM etc, at least noone injured.

What rubbish.

ALWAYS leave enough room between you and the car in front to be able to stop. It really is very simple

To the OP it was not your fault

Markyt

Happychappy wrote: »

... the other drivers should/would have also been looking at the road ahead and seeing absolutely no obstruction ...

No obstruction other than the dirty great lump of metal in front of them of course. The biggest potential hazard they had to worry about.

chris-j

photome wrote: »

What rubbish.

ALWAYS leave enough room between you and the car in front to be able to stop. It really is very simple

To the OP it was not your fault

Great, lets just leave another crap driver on the road who cannot read the road ahead properly and at the end of the day, is responsible for this accident happening. Yes the car at the back should have been able to stop but having probably seen no danger looming continued driving. The OP does not indicate how abruptly they stopped and this is a factor here.

If I walk out of the road in front of you from behind a large lorry and you hit me, is it my fault or yours?